Short answer. In Daniel 7:13-14, "one like a son of man" is a human-shaped figure who comes on the clouds and receives everlasting dominion from the Ancient of Days. By the first century, some Jews read him as a pre-existent heavenly judge (the Parables of Enoch); Jesus calls himself "the Son of Man," fusing both senses: resonance you can lean on, not influence you can bank.
Daniel 7:13-14: a human shape among the beasts
The phrase enters Western religion in a throne-room vision. Daniel 7 stages four monstrous beasts rising from the chaotic sea, then a court convenes: the "Ancient of Days" takes his seat, and "one like a son of man" (Aramaic bar enash) comes "with the clouds of heaven" to be given "dominion and glory and kingship" that "shall never be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14). The Aramaic idiom bar enash simply means "a human being", so the plainest reading is that, against the beastly empires, God's kingdom looks human. Crucially, Daniel 7:18 and 7:27 interpret the figure corporately: the dominion is given to "the holy ones of the Most High," i.e. faithful Israel. John J. Collins, in his Hermeneia commentary Daniel (1993), argues the figure is best read as a heavenly representative (likely the angel Michael) whose enthronement mirrors the people's vindication. So Daniel itself holds two valences at once: a human-looking one, and a heavenly one. The text never resolves the ambiguity, and that unresolved tension is exactly what later readers will pull in opposite directions.
The human-versus-divine fork
Everything downstream forks here. On one path, bar enash is a figure of speech: "son of man" parallels "son of Adam," a way of saying "mortal," and Daniel's own gloss (7:27) hands the kingdom to a people, not a god. On the other path, the figure rides the clouds, and in the Hebrew Bible cloud-riding is reserved almost exclusively for God (Psalm 68:4; Psalm 104:3). Alan F. Segal, in Two Powers in Heaven (1977), showed that some Jews read passages like Daniel 7 as evidence of a second enthroned figure beside God, a reading rabbinic authorities later branded the "two powers" heresy. So the question "is the Son of Man human or divine?" is not a modern imposition; it is a live first-century Jewish debate. The honest verdict: Daniel supplies the raw material for both answers, and the surviving sources show real Jews taking it in both directions before any Christian read it at all.
The Parables of Enoch: the figure becomes a person
By the turn of the era, the corporate reading had, in at least one stream, hardened into an individual. In the Similitudes (Parables) of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71, a section preserved in Ge'ez) "that Son of Man" is a named, pre-existent heavenly being who "was chosen and hidden in God's presence before the world was created" (1 Enoch 48:6) and who will sit "on the throne of his glory" to judge kings and the mighty (1 Enoch 62:5). James VanderKam's work on Enochic literature treats this figure as a development of Daniel's "one like a son of man" into a distinct messianic judge. Two cautions keep us tier-honest. First, the Similitudes are the one part of 1 Enoch absent from the Dead Sea Scrolls, so their date is debated: most scholars now settle on the late first century BCE or early first century CE, roughly contemporaneous with Jesus, not safely prior. Second, this is a parallel Jewish development, not a proven source for the Gospels. What it proves is real and limited: a heavenly, pre-existent "Son of Man" judge was available in Jesus's world, resonance you can lean on, not influence you can bank.
How Jesus uses the phrase
In the Gospels "the Son of Man" is overwhelmingly Jesus's *self*-designation: it appears on his own lips and almost never from anyone else's. He deploys it in three registers. Authority now: "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mark 2:10) and "is lord even of the sabbath" (Mark 2:28). Suffering: "the Son of Man must undergo great suffering... and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31), a register with no obvious Danielic precedent, suggesting Jesus is combining traditions. Coming glory: at his trial, asked if he is the Messiah, he answers, "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62), a direct fusion of Daniel 7:13 with Psalm 110:1, and the line the high priest treats as blasphemy. The pattern is not random: Jesus takes Daniel's ambiguous cloud-rider, layers on a suffering motif, and claims the seat.
Boyarin's reframe: a Jewish idea, not a Christian invention
Daniel Boyarin, in The Jewish Gospels (2012), pushes the implication hard: the "divine-human" Son of Man was not a Christian departure from Judaism but an idea already inside Second Temple Judaism, which Daniel 7's two figures (the Ancient of Days and the human-like one) and the Enochic Son of Man both attest. On this reading, when Jesus calls himself the Son of Man and rides the clouds to the throne, he is speaking fluent first-century Jewish, not inventing a foreign category. This is a bold scholarly thesis and not a consensus; Larry Hurtado and others locate high Christology more in early devotional practice than in a pre-packaged "Son of Man" concept. We flag it as a serious, contested reading. The conservative core all sides grant: Daniel 7 is the wellspring, the phrase carried both human and exalted senses in Jesus's day, and the Gospels draw the two together.
Common questions
What does "son of man" mean in Daniel 7?
The Aramaic idiom bar enash simply means "a human being," so the plainest reading is that, against the beastly empires rising from the sea, God's kingdom looks human. The figure comes "with the clouds of heaven" and receives dominion that "shall never be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14). Crucially, Daniel itself interprets the figure corporately at 7:18 and 7:27, handing the kingdom to "the holy ones of the Most High," i.e. faithful Israel.
Is the Son of Man human or divine?
That is not a modern imposition; it is a live first-century Jewish debate, and Daniel supplies the raw material for both answers. On one path bar enash is a figure of speech for "mortal," and Daniel's own gloss hands the kingdom to a people, not a god. On the other path the figure rides the clouds, which in the Hebrew Bible is reserved almost exclusively for God (Psalm 68:4; Psalm 104:3), and Alan Segal showed some Jews read this as a second enthroned figure, the reading rabbis later branded the "two powers" heresy. The surviving sources show real Jews taking it in both directions before any Christian read it at all.
What is the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch?
In the Similitudes (1 Enoch 37-71) "that Son of Man" is a named, pre-existent heavenly being "chosen and hidden in God's presence before the world was created" (48:6) who sits "on the throne of his glory" to judge kings and the mighty (62:5). Two cautions keep this tier-honest: the Similitudes are the one part of 1 Enoch absent from the Dead Sea Scrolls, so their date is debated (most settle on the late first century BCE or early first century CE, not safely prior), and this is a parallel Jewish development, not a proven source for the Gospels. What it proves is real and limited: a heavenly, pre-existent Son of Man judge was available in Jesus's world, resonance you can lean on, not influence you can bank.
How does Jesus use "the Son of Man"?
In the Gospels it is overwhelmingly Jesus's own self-designation, on his lips and almost never anyone else's, and he deploys it in three registers. Authority now: "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mark 2:10); suffering: "the Son of Man must undergo great suffering... and be killed, and after three days rise again" (Mark 8:31), a register with no obvious Danielic precedent; and coming glory: at his trial he answers, "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62), fusing Daniel 7:13 with Psalm 110:1. He takes Daniel's ambiguous cloud-rider, layers on a suffering motif, and claims the seat.
This page settles the textual genealogy (Daniel's vision, its forking readings, the Enochic development, the Gospel usage) without pretending the influence runs on rails. The Son of Man is a Jewish riddle that Jesus answers by sitting down on the throne; whether that answer was "always there" in Judaism or made new is the live debate, and the sources let you see both.
Sources
Daniel 7:13-14, 7:18, 7:27; Psalm 68:4; Psalm 104:3; Psalm 110:1; 1 Enoch 48:6, 62:5 (Parables/Similitudes, 1 Enoch 37-71); Mark 2:10, 2:28, 8:31, 14:62. John J. Collins,* Daniel (Hermeneia, 1993); Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (1977); James VanderKam (Enochic literature); Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels *(2012); Larry Hurtado (on early devotional Christology).